IJAHP Preface: Mu/Do we need more AHP/ANP studies? International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 403 Vol. 8 Issue 3 2016 ISSN 1936-6744 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i3.451 DO WE NEED MORE AHP/ANP STUDIES? Recently, a paper submitted to a major journal was rejected by the editor with the indication that the AHP method was very well known so “another AHP study” was not needed for the time being. Being a scholar who also publishes in areas beyond AHP/ANP, I was quite surprised by this argument. I have never seen a paper rejected with the argument that “Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a well-known method so we do not need “another SEM study.” The AHP/ANP are tools that have been around for several decades, and have proven to be very suitable as multi-criteria decision-making methods to address all varieties of managerial and social problems and to integrate multiple opinions from a great variety of stakeholders. In a world where problems become more complex over time and where opinions are becoming polarized, our opinion would be that the number of studies addressing problematic decisions should increase proportionally. Therefore, we consider that on the contrary, we need more AHP/ANP studies. The issue is not if the method is well-known, but rather if the target problem has been solved. For that reason, the International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process does not determine whether to accept or reject an article based on how sophisticated or exotic the methodology is but instead on whether it does a good job addressing the target problem. The day when there are less decisions to make instead of more will be the day when we can say, “we need less AHP/ANP studies”. However, that day seems still very far from now. Consistent with the above, this December issue brings eight new AHP/ANP studies. The issue begins with a review of the literature for AHP/ANP sports applications by Nisel and Ozdemir from Istanbul University, and is followed by an interesting simulation of a tsunami evacuation by Kohara and Sugiyama from the Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan. Next, there are four very practical applications: A vendor’s selection for an Indian steel pipe (Kamath, Barkur et al); determination of overall stress of policemen (Oneren, Arar, et al); a study to improve pedestrian mobility to revitalize traditional markets in South Korea (Ching and Yoon), and a study of how to prioritize performance measures using AHP by R. Vachnazde from the Free University of Tbilisi in Georgia. Our last two articles to close this issue are more theoretical in nature: Stan Lipovestky extends AHP by incorporating the Best-Worst scaling marketing research technique and demonstrates IJAHP Preface: Mu/Do we need more AHP/ANP studies? International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 404 Vol. 8 Issue 3 2016 ISSN 1936-6744 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i3.451 its use by tackling the classic secretary problem. Finally, Claudio Garuti reports on the new advances of using the compatibility index G in weighted environments. Our IJAHP team believes there is enough variety in this issue to keep our readers engaged in reading AHP/ANP studies over the holiday break. Happy Holidays! Enrique Mu, PhD IJAHP, Editor-in-chief